Court ruled that government directives must be adhered to for correcting land status under the Odisha Tenancy Act, thereby affirming tenants' rights.

JUDGMENT :

K.R.MOHAPATRA, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Inaction of Opposite Parties-functionaries of the State in changing status of the land mentioned in the Record of Right (ROR) from ‘Dakhal Satwa Sunya’ to ‘Stithiban’ is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

3. Case of the Petitioners in brief relevant for adjudication is that Plot No.242/340 to an extent of Ac.5.00 under Khata No.64/1 situated in mouza Dalua under Bhubaneswar Tahasil in the district of Khordha (for brevity ‘the case land’) stands recorded in the name of one Balakrushna Kanungo (father of Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and proforma Opposite Party No.5). The Kisam of the case land is recorded as ‘Bajefasal-3’. In Column No.3 of ROR, the status of the case land has been described as ‘Dakhal Satwa Sunya’. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 as well as Opposite Party No.5 are the successors of the recorded tenant, namely, late Balakrushna Kanungo. It is pertinent to mention here that late Balakrushna Kanungo had two sons, namely, Amiya Kumar Kanungo, Arun Kumar Kanungo and one daughter, namely, Manasi Pattnaik. Manasi Pattnaik has been added as proforma Opposite Party No.5 to the writ petition. The recorded tenant died on 26^th November, 1981 leaving behind his legal heirs as stated above.

3.1 Government in Revenue and Disaster Management Department issued letter RDM-CHS-PGOT-0303-2020/L No.3063/R and DM dated 28^th January, 2021 (Annexure-6) to all Collectors of the State instructing them to initiate suo motu cases and correct the status of the case land to ‘Stithiban’ wherever the status of land is recorded as ‘Bajyapti Stithiban’, ‘Dakhal Satwa Bisista’ and ‘Dakhal Satwa Sunya’. In the said letter, it is observed that the Department vide letter No.47582 dated 12^th October, 1990 had issued a set of instructions titled as ‘Raiyati Jami Record Kariba Pranali O Satwaa Satwa Niyamabali’ (for short, ‘Guidelines’) to regulate recording of the Raiyati land. In para-23 of the said instruction/Guidelines, it is indicated that in course of settlement operation in the undivided districts of Puri, Cuttack and Balasore, the land recorded in the status of ‘Bajyapti Stithiban’, ‘Dakhal Satwa Bisista’ and ‘Dakhal Satwa Sunya’ would be recorded under ‘Stithiban’ status. In the rest part of the State of Odisha if entry of the status of land in the RoR is noticed as above, the same would be recorded under ‘Raiyati’ status. Thus, the Petitioners claim the land being situated in the undivided district of Puri (now in the district of Khordha), the ROR should have been prepared describing the status of the case land as ‘Stithiban’. In the said letter under Annexure-6, it has been instructed that Tahasildar should initiate suo motu cases to change the status of the land to ‘Stithiban’. The Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.2 failed to act upon the instruction issued as above to change the status of the case land to ‘Stithiban’. Petitioners also intimated the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.2, vide grievance petition dated 3^rd January, 2024 under Annexure-7, to change the status of the case land to ‘Stithiban’. But the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar failed to act upon the same. Hence, the Petitioners finding no other alternative have filed the present writ petition.

4. Mr. Mukherji, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners contended that para-23 of the Regulations clearly stipulates that as per Section 24 of the Odisha Tenancy Act, 1913, a Stithiban Raiyat has possessory right over the land he is cultivating. Section 4 of the said Act states that there are three kinds of Raiyats, namely, ‘Chirastayee Jama Raiyat’, ‘Dakhal Satwa Bisista Raiyat’ and ‘Dakhal Satwa Sunya Raiyat’. In some cases, ‘Chirastayee Jama R